Chulin 113

Today's is and we have four lines from the top of today's being learned as so we're moving along in discussing the of stating that the first twothirds of today's daf is going to deal with that are not literally and that is the laws of the laws of casering kosher meat. So we know that one of the things that has to happen in the preparation of kosher meat is the kashering process. The premise of having takash or an animal is based on the fact that every animal obviously has a lot of blood. There's a lot in the is one of the most things in the entire for a person to eat blood. As a result, in order to make the meat, you have to remove the blood. How do you remove the blood? So Kazal gave us a mahal. What you're supposed to do is you're supposed to salt the meat. How exactly you salt it is going to be discussed in today's D. But there's some sort of malik process and al the malik of the baser. The assumption is that the dam is going to extract. Once the dam extracts, at that point you're going to be able to obviously cook, roast, fry, eat the meat that it is that you're preparing. As relates to the first gum that we're going to learn, it really is predicated on a gum. Later in today's Rashi says in order to properly understand this very first that the mentions on is a memor from Schmool said that when you do malik you have to do it in a nukov you have to do it in a kali that has holes. Why do you have to do it in a kali that has holes? Because really there's a little bit of a catch 22. You're going to go and you're going to salt the animal. The concept of salting it is that the blood is going to come out. Why are you not concerned that after the salt causes the blood to go out, the meat itself is going to be blaya the salt again. And if that's the case, you're going to end up in the same place that you started. Albeit you took the long scenic route. So it's true the salt will extract, but at the same time it'll end up being reabsorbed. And if that's the case, you should end up having a problem. The answer to that is what we use is a clemenuk. So being that you're using a kali that's manukov. So as soon as the blood comes out we assume that it's going to go through these nikov and like this everything's going to be okay. But if you think about it the kleukov shouldn't really be a perfect solution because until the dam leaves through the inside this at that point it might reabsorb it. And if that's the case, why isn't that something that you're concerned with? The answer is Kazal said that an animal or meat can be maflet. It could also be blea. It could be maflet, meaning it can cause parts of it to leave, but and it could also be blea. It can absorb, but at the same time, it can't be ble and maflet at the same time. There's a concept of id is for a piece of meat or any item of food or even a pot if it's being maflet right now. So we assume that at the time that it's being maflet it doesn't have the ability to be blaya. So here's the point. As soon as you start salting the piece of meat it's going to be maflet maflet maflet. It's not going to be able to be blea until it stops being maflet. By the time it stops being maflet we assume that all the d will have left and as a result it's going to be fine. If you're going to use a kay that's then you're actually going to have a problem because then it's going to be maflet maflet maflet during which time it will not be blayer but when it stops being maf at that time it could be blay. So as long as the dam is still inside the ki based on that you're going to have an issue. So it's because of that said that has to be done in we need to know that in order to appreciate this very first that we're going to learn right now says the said if somebody goes and he does with fish and with together is the fish says only the fish is going to be so if Somebody does with that's fine. You're allowed to be we'll see later in the many pieces of meat together. If somebody's my dog, there's no issue. If someone's there's not going to be an issue said, but if you're going to take and says, but it's a bigger that this is true for as we're going to say, but if somebody would take and he would salt them together, the is the dog are going to be. So the Gmorra says hey what's the and then we'll try to understand if we're dealing with a ki that was meaning there's no holes inside this ki then I feel that we had to know in order to start this anytime a person salts even you're never allowed to do with a and if that's the case why are we dealing with it's going to be it's always to do that way and if you're dealing with that's it. So what's unique? What's so different about dog says the gamar and with the introduction that we gave to the daf we should be able to read this gamarra in a second we're dealing with a dog however fish because the membrane that surrounds the fish is very very soft it starts being maflit the minute you put the salt on it it immediately it starts doing the for however the buster of is much harder and by the way is even harder than that and if that's the case which means Means being that the starts being mafled earlier, it also stops being mafled earlier. So you have a mitas right now where the stop being where the dog stop being mafled and the because it got a late start are still being maflet. So you know what's going to happen during that interim period the dog are going to end up being the dam of the and it's for that reason you're going to end up having yourself an issue. So it says that if you understand the mechanics of how malik work and why it's okay to do malik with a cle it's based on the fact because while you're being maflet you can't be ble and as long as you have a clev so you'll be maf maflet all the dham is going to be gone by the time you're you settle down a little bit and you're ready to be blaya that's all true if you're all on the same schedule so if all the meat inside this kay is on the same schedule it's going to be okay but if you have two pieces of meat that are not operating in tandem You have dog and if you have dog and be where dog is maflet in a second takes a little bit longer takes even a little bit longer than that. Well, what's going to happen is the dog is going to stop being maflet before the and the bea is going to stop being maf which means it's going to be able to now be ble. So you're going to have it all together even in a you're going to end up having yourself an issue and that's and certainly that's what you have to is going to be said it's only the dog that's going to be why is the not going to be so the reason it's not going to be is because it's being maf doesn't have the ability to be but the truth is is dam of a fish anyways although sometimes there's a concept of a dog to but the fact that dam should be is anyways not initial the fact that and the buser being would be a moot point it would be on arrival but in the lus of the it's all about the d being that it starts being mallet first it stops being mallet first it has the ability to be blea while the and the behema are still being mallet therefore even if you have a cle you're going to have yourself an issue. This is the very first part of today's d. Moving along once did with bos and so he took and he did malik together and he came to and he asked them a shil. Now it's very interesting gar because the gumar doesn't say what the shila was. The gumar is going to say that roa gave him a terod and the gar is going to question ra's terods. He should have said a different terrorist and is going to explain why Robin gave the terrorist that he gave. But what was the shil? What was the shil? It's not clear. And because the doesn't say what the shila was, there's a little bit of a discussion in the we're going to learn the way Rashi learns the even though we're going to see that the way Rashi learns the is going to lend itself to [snorts] a kasha that's going to jump off the page. It's much going to hit us in the nose. But Rashi is the struggle with understanding Rash's. But the way Rashi learns the Raari's question was as follows. His question was he knows that if you want to be two pieces of kosher meat together, it's okay. I aren't you worried that dam [snorts] is coming out and maybe the dam of this piece of meat is going to be nive and the other piece of meat. What's the answer? So the answer is for the same reason I worry that the D of this piece of meat is going to be nibla in the same piece of meat. [snorts] It's because ID the there's a concept that when you're being maflet maf maflet you can't be blayer by layer by layer right when a piece of meat is being in maflet it's not going to be ble that's the concept asked what about with regards to the secretions the the rot the se the mo right these are all like synonyms of each other all the different liquids that come out of a of a piece of meat if you cook two pieces of meat together and one piece to me right now is being maflet muffled maflet down. Do you say that while it's being mafled down it can't be ble all these secretions just like it can't be blay or maybe there's a that when you're being madam you can't be blay down but maybe if I'm being mad I could go ahead and be blay something else now what would be the so the say the would be based on the mitas of dam versus the mitsas of these other liquids you know dam has a unique consistency so maybe there's a concept that when you're being I can't be that's what but what about with regards to these other secretions so he wanted to know if I'm going to do malik with basit with basa. At first glance you would say this should be an issue because uh the you're going to have a situation where the the is going to be by from the traa and by the way as we'll see the gar is going to speak out. We know this already we're kneede into the of we know. So the malik itself causes ble and plus not just of dam it causes ble and plusl. So if that's the case, you know, at first glance, you would think it's a problem, but told I'm not sure because I know there's a poet. So if right now just like it can't be and that's why you can do with two pieces of kosher together, even though this dam which is mish, the worst of the worst that's over here, but we we're so confident with this. So it's not going to be so maybe as it relates to the seir and everything else, it's going to be okay. This was the question that he asked ra the way Rashi explains the kasha malay. So told he said I am going to tell you what it says in the parish of the and it's coming to be the of the little pieces that fall to the bottom are going to be meaning all these different liquids that come out of the sher are going to be assur so what's the terret zakashi the terret is rabb told that you see that the seir and the rot of non-cooser food is non-cooser and if that's the case for sure you're going to have yourself an issue meaning for sure you're going to say that if you're going to go and you're going to z together you're going to end up having a problem so again the question was do you say it's not going to be you say it by dam do you say by all the other liquids as well you know rab told him the liquids are it sounds like Ramy Bar knew the liquids are cuz if he didn't know that the liquids are he, he wouldn't have a sh. So the most obvious premise of this question, right? Questions always have several that they're presupposing. The most obvious one here is is that he thinks that all these liquids that come out are his is there. That's his whole question over here. Ra doesn't seem to have addressed the question. I don't know how in the world to read this the way Rashi learns but either way this is the way Rashi learns it that told him and that was his way of saying that this it's going to be awesome even though as far as it relates to but as it relates to everything else this is not going to be a problem that if wanted to come with a what was his saying good doesn't think so but you're saying good say matter. What he was said is what does that mean? So what it means is that if you together it creates a of plus just like does right just like does so too does and if you soak it in and you let it sit there for an extended period of time. It's the equivalent thereof of bishop from that linear that should be the and the [snorts] reason is because if what would be the if somebody would go and he would roast it together is there a in the world that it wouldn't be of course it would be so say that now there's a and that's when you're doing the I hear but if you're coming for I think this is the I better than the all you see is why didn't you just say you know this is what happened so by the same way says the reason he didn't just say that was because had he only said I would have thought I would have thought that you're right there's a concept but that's only what's so the dam we know is the says it's as relates to Maybe they're not at all kamashan. That's why he needed the kamash. The garra is doubling down. The way Rashi learns the garra on a feeling a need to say you should know is even though it sounds like knew that right. It's the only way to learn the Rashi Kamat speaks this out is that it seems like for whatever reason where asked him the question he understood that wasn't sure whether the it sounds like he knew of and somehow psychoanalyzed and the question and understood that that more where he was coming from if he thought that knew that is but the shil was more if you say the which is the way explains the which is why the are struggling to understand but if that's more where he was coming from then he would have just said but he understood that the shil was number one way explains the shil you have to say the shil was also whether you say I did the and that's why he said what he said now why didn't he also say isn't it from the shil assuming that was also part of the sh because that's why explain again it's a hard in terms of learning the but either way again what was the shar asked the question do you say or do you not say understood that he was also questioning whether there's even an islah Good. But now assuming there's an innocent you say I do not say and what's rais you don't say I in as much as you do say it when it comes to them. But when it comes to these uh different liquids that come out of the meat over there you're not going to say it. So again to take two pieces of kosher meat and to salt them together even though dam is going to come out and there's a concern that the one piece of meat is going to be blaya the dam of the other piece of meat. That's not something I'm worried about. do it in a kanuk. As long as you do that, you're going to be fine. I you're being ble maflet. No, you're being maflet and being you're being maf, we're not considering you going to be ble if however one piece of meat is kosher and the other piece is not kosher. So then in addition to the hat is all these other things as well. And with regards to the other things, you don't have the and for that reason that already even it doesn't matter. That's going to be an issue from somebody went ahead and he salted a dog together with a dog. So again, we're dealing not with but we're dealing with. Additionally, when it comes to a dog, we said there's no is but the mitis is all the same. So somebody goes ahead and he sorts together with it's going to be now issue with the is that we're not worried about the of inside the says it sounds like he was both of them and they're going to be why they if you both of them means they're both being maflet if they're both being maflet so you would think that the dag should be the reason to should beer Because it's being ble from the if it's being ble from the that should be a reason for it to be what must be the reason being both of them. So the dar is being maflet just like the dto is being maflet. So being that the is being an it can't be from the says you see it's not like is not only it's regarding as well but says who said that is talking about which maybe it's talking about maybe only the was the one that was but the tummy was you didn't salt the tummy you didn't salt the tummy it wasn't maflet anything you need a salt to be maflet right so if weren't if didn't salt it so it wasn't mafl anything it's for that reason it's going to be multip if you would salt both of them then they would both be or the would beer and the reason would beer is because even though it too is salted and it is being malf but this [snorts] goes says this case in the event that only the was but what do you see from here but you can't tell me that the case of which is the first case of the is the same as the second part of the so we know what that is so the case earlier which is a different case must be talking about now one of them was but where both of them were but the point is from the second case is talking about where they both had malik says no it's could be it's all one case and the second case is not a separate case. That's a little bit. What's the case? Is it talking about or is it talking about you only say if you can tell me is talking about where they both had tell me that they're both then certainly in the case where only one of them had it's going to be meaning if they're two different cases it would make no sense because why would you tell me two different where I know one but there is came from the other it must be one and it's but the says to the but the checkmness I don't agree with if you're telling me meaning it's a pickbook not on the terret of the ratio because it could be I needed the two cases is to be maybe had you not had the I would have thought I would have thought in a case where you didn't salt the but let's say you salted also the maybe it's going to be therefore I needed to say and it doesn't make sense to tell me two of the same cases to teach me oh must be the is talking about meaning from the fact that there's two cases that in of itself is Not Aria here nor there. It could be I need the second case to be mafarish data or fak I need the second case to be megala on what the ratio is or really what the ratio isn't because if the second case is this then the first case is not that. So from the fact that there's two cases is there's no raya one way or the other but there's also no ria one way or the other and that's the point. So to ask a kasha on Rob from the Bryce that's not something you can do because there's no raya from the fact that there's two cases but to say hamstabra that Rob is right that also because again there's no ria from the two cases of the bry says the gammor I hear so from the first and the second case of the bry there's no ri neither here nor there you can bring a safer the safest every good bryer has a safer the safh so this is already the third part of the mold right that's the only case we haven't discussed We discussed the case where they both had malik. We discussed the case and not the if the had and the was and then for sure it's going to be the why because this plate this over here and we say the dog is going to be by the way even though you didn't do on the but it's going to end up absorbing something says [snorts] the what does it sound like? It sounds like the only time it's if the Tommy was but if they both had then is it's going to be sorry meaning when you only the and not the it sounds like then it's but if you both of them it sounds like it's what's the difference if you only the not the so then there's no of the that's why the Torah is going to be but if you both of the so the safer the safer shouldn't that be Because it sounds like the only timeer is if only the was because again if the first case is talking about the but to the extent that is it's going to be said then why do I need this last case it's going to be even you already told me is it sounds like no where there's no idea the turret which is the and it sounds like only over there it's going to be awesome but says you can't bring any riot from the last part of the either because it could be this is poetic symmetry as opposed to accuracy maybe there's a certain symmetry in the could be we have the case of where they're both and then we have the case where one and not the other and then the others when it's the other and not the one the bottom line is even though from this brace at first glance it sounded like we'd have a little bit of a of a gilly one way or the other lisa you can spin this brace any way you want right like a lot of bryes that are very sus and as a result you know you literally can uh do whatever you want with it you have the ability to go ahead and hack exactly the way you want to do it this price is such an example there's no cash on but at the same time there's no having to either either way the malikusa And this is a seven for three is going to bring now in the laws of related. So the only time works is if you do additionally you also have to wash it. So two things. Number one the has to be what does that mean? So if you take a look at the so different have different per what emerges is some y means you have to use a lot of salt. Other say means you have to leave it there for an extended period of time. So the point is has to be additionally now itself is in fact you have to wash it. Who's saying by washing it? You have to do you have to wash it. Yeah. And now you have to wash it. You have to wash it really well. It says there was had to understand what it means said that the has to happen after you don't have to wash it before the you wash it after the which means but there was a said first you have to wash it then you then you wash there's really no talking about with the butcher already washed it. If the butcher already washed it, that makes sense. You don't want to wash it. If he washed it already, then the zer doesn't have to go ahead and wash it again. The bryer was talking about the you have to make sure that you're going to wash it. The butcher washes it. Let it happen that way. Says that so he would use thick grains of salt when he would do that's the first thing. Additionally, what he would do is before he would wash it, he would shake it off and he would be it and only afterwards would he go ahead and do he added one level. There was malik well first and then malik and then afterwards he would go ahead and he would do another. Now what's the point in doing all these? So the second is obvious the second is because even after you salt it the salt now is absorbed with all this n you got to get rid of the salt. So you have to wash off all the salt and make sure it's not going to be anywhere nearradimi held at first shake off the salt and then wash it. And the reason the say is is because Rashi speaks that because he was worried that if you're going to go ahead and you're going to wash it while the salt is there's going to cause the the salt to get absorbed into the baser. So first shake it off right get rid of the lowhanging fruit and then afterwards you're going to go ahead and you're going to do a a little bit of rinse. The question is why do you have to do the first that's not so murish? That's not so clear. That's already discussion. The first what's that all about? I have to I'm gonna end up washing it anyways. I'm going to do sounds like you first have to wash it in order for the to work afterwards. That's already a little bit of a but either way this is first. Additionally says but this is not this is not part of the but that when it comes to the so you don't have to be worried really about there being too much says if you would go ahead and you would cook the not doing would be kosher wow so the doesn't have so much dominant and as a result it doesn't require stating that said Mash he said he didn't mean all the he meant specifically right that's the colon the rectum of the animal is the stomach the ka the kas etc etc the that's a certain part of the intestines of the animal that's the area that you have to go ahead and do this but the bottom line is is that I mean that's what would be that and as a result if you didn't do it's going to be okay by the way in some places can say that even though it's We better know that the only way you can do is if you're using but if you don't use a it's not going to be okay. Why not? Because when you use the you can have the ID but the minute it's have the ID anymore parenthetically when he would do so he would take one bone at a time right a gar is a bone said so a gar is a bone would do one bone at a time and that's the way he would go ahead and he would do thear says I don't understand trade my time like why did use two bones at a time because he was afraid that would come from one to the other well if that's the case if he's so Right? Even a he's worried it's going to go from one to the other. Well then even one piece should be a problem because so why are you not worried about that Allah says this has really not something that we understand and it's for that reason just did it good but at the same time we don't understand it is not something you have to worry about the third if somebody breaks the neck of an animal after before it it dies. Now if you do it before then the animals so it has to be you did but it's only while the animal's alive if the animal's alive is it possible you did of course right so the animal is [snorts] is so you have to worry about anymore but at the same time it's alive so somebody would go ahead and he would break the neck of the animal during that period what he's going to do is he's going to cause the meat of the animal to be super superficially heavier than it really should be. Okay. And by him doing that, he's going to end up being a gazin and he's going to cause dam to be saturated inside. So the gumar is going to have anybody with the gar is going to try to understand a little bit better what mess if we don't understand it to the but the mas we have to understand and that is the said that if somebody goes and he breaks the neck of the animal what it does is it causes more dam to remain inside the animal than would otherwise remain inside the animal. Rashi says the reason is is because what happens is the animal coughs up a lot of blood. So a lot of the blood that's going to end up exiting the animal gets exited just from the groaning and the cracks and the coughing of the animal at the time of the if this person goes and he cracks the neck of the animal at the time of the say get he did it after but if he goes ahead and he does this well that's going to cause the animal not to be able to cough and there's going to be more dam inside is very simple if somebody goes to a butcher and he says you know I want a a 10 piece of meat so That meat you assume might have a little bit of dumb inside but it's going to be of if however this person was this end up being more dumb. So you know what's going to happen because he's going to end up doing he's going to get rid of all that d and he's going to end up with a much smaller piece of meat here. He thought he was serving portions and at the end of the day he's not going to be happy about it. So as a result, so you're and therefore this is something you have to worry about because again the person in his mind thinks he's buying a good piece of meat. In the meantime, he's not really getting such a such a good piece of meat. Additionally, says the were a little bit he said two things. Did he mean to say meaning it's all one? and as a result but let's say you wanted to go ahead and you wanted to do it for yourself it would be okay because for yourself there's no right and therefore this wouldn't be a problem maybe saying there's two problems number one number two means and if that's case you couldn't do it for yourself either is it one thing or two things but the bottom line is Shil is this two problems or is this one problem and the gar says either way this concludes the majority of today's this concludes the portion of today's we're now going to turn our attention to the portion of today's if somebody takes together with and he puts it on a table while he's eating is he's not Right? So if somebody takes and he puts it on a is not now this is a very hard to understand right in the world of first it's not just true for it's true for also it says it says it three times but there's say so it's really because of this that which is obvious that the is is going to say what it's about to says the Gmorra, you know what you see from the Mishna? What you see from the but if you would eat it you would be over as if to say the mish is trying to tell me that the only time there's no is which obviously there's no say but all the other that you have by you would have by as well you know you see from here you see that is right so at first glance says there should be now who said anything about everybody knows is and we've seen it already, but it's really the next Mishna and it's the next two where the Gmorra is going to jump right into it. So says the Gmorra, should we prove should we prove from this Mishna from this funny that only in this case there's no be a problem says no maybe what the mission is saying is just the opposite. The Mishna is trying to tell me that is not and you know the Mishna is telling it to you by saying that you should know if you would put it on the table who cares it'll never come to any problems anyways it'll never come see either the Mishna is right two diametrically opposed ways of learning the Mishna again the Mishna at face value is and what we emerge with is two completely different ways of looking at it either you should know the only way not to be when it comes to if you're but everything else is going to be a Well, the Mish is telling me just the opposite all day every day from the he can never come is not at all. Moving along. So the premise to this next mission that we're going to learn and really the premise to the rest of today's into tomorrow's is the says three times. Now we've mentioned countless times already that the reason Tyra says it three times right first second and third we're going to see that's not the unanimous position amongst the it's the everybody knows it's not the only shittita to come in the next few days that's number one but number two the dick really is as we'll on top of a on top of a doesn't just tell me thou shalt not three times it mentions three times three times the nuance nature of the see the introduction to but the nuance nature of repeating itself twice and then thrice that in of itself is and really the Mishna now is going to focus and then ensuing is going to focus specifically will be a little bit more than this but the this is the why it says gi three times meaning even if you want to tell me to laugh three times you don't say gad three times maybe it might be another way of telling me to laugh three times it says gad obviously there's something that's meant to be learned from here and that is going to be as we'll see the avoid of the latter part of the d either way says the so if somebody has a kosher animal of a animal. Again, when we say, we don't mean that it's not, we mean it's kosher. So, the meat of a kosher animal and the milk of a cook together benefit from them. And obviously, there's also an why didn't the Mishna mention this? So, we'll see in the next line. What would be if the meat came from a kosher animal, but the milk came from a non- kosher animal or the meat came from a non- kosher animal and the milk came from a kosher animal? Well, in those cases, there's a headsh. Why? Because being that one side, being that one side over here is non-coosher. Once you have a non-cooser element, be it the meat, be it the milk, at that point there's not going to be. [snorts] Now, as it relates to, could you tell me? Of course not. Because in the first case, the milk is not kosher. In the second case, the meat is not kosher. So you can't talk about that means the is going to be in the second case as well. Which means what's the contrast between the first case and the second case as it relates to that's why the mission didn't mention anything about. So you're right. Why didn't we mention it? Because we're only highlighting the between where the meat and the milk are both kosher versus where one of or the other is not says as it relates to the buster of and the buster of an together with is not in its and it says and from the three times that it mentions it number one number two [snorts] and number It says in the same it says right the first two times it says it says it in the same as the third time that it says it in there it says it in the it says it together with the love of but either way said from the juosition of the and of we learn the following anything that's you're not let together with. So if that's the case, we're going to include anything that has a however you would have thought it should also be being that the mother doesn't have so therefore it doesn't pass and therefore is going to be excluded. Let's make a seum on the Mishna. If you think about the Mishna, the [snorts] Mishna really is presenting three shittas as it relates to what type of animal is included and what type of animal is excluded from [snorts] the of the right said the only that's excluded is if the is or if the was never said a word about never said a word about and it's for that reason understand that the of the is that is all the only that's excluded is if it's even though the lion was never said a word about okay but never a word about but also didn't exclude it it's the latteras that started talking about the exclusions the only thing the tan excluded was so as it relates to it sounds like the tanak is it's all going to be included says said two of the three. So according to no it's only it's not it's not says that obviously also because what was the rule and is included in this stating that you would have thought it's so says is the what's the how do you know the how do I know that the of is true for all mean the whole over here is are we of course says it says so maybe means only we'll see more about them in the course of the tomorrow it's gi why I think sounds like a gi you should for sure need to be only so says I'm going to tell you why because says this in the context of so he sent the you know it's this was the goat version was but every time it says the word I feel it means just farm animals meaning we know a g is a gad is a tag, right? That's what it is. It's a goat. How do you know that? I mean, that's that's the way we've been taught our whole lives. Says rebel, I don't know. I'm questioning that. You know why? I'm just thinking out loud here. It says, so it sounds like there's a and then there's the is a goat. So that sounds like that's the goat variety of but actually meets every single for anything more interesting. But if that's the case for led is a that all gadis are really gism meaning is probably not just because means gad probably is a type of you're not sure what type of behem I got news for you should be the that maybe every can't say there's another it says this is a this is a compl with regards to going ahead and stealing the but it says no because I have another teaches me the same thing have another teaches me the same thing so I say don't stop go what do you mean just like we said maybe learn it from the says n you know the whole point of the terror is being that two times it says says that's why I know I can't learn that means must be means everything says follows up with discussion that's good I hear because both times that it says it says not both times it could have said and it says and from there I learned that it's ta over here. It's over here that means but everywhere else does not means bottom line is how do I know that the is of is true not only for goats but it's true for all because the word means fascinating we thought means right this was one of the questions we posed when we went through the of right all the different questions that we talked about one of them was why does always talk about a gi means after further review now still why not talk about and maybe why not talk about as well right just tell it to me about still but the bottom line is as it relates to doesn't mean go that's means it says in the three times now there's a question that's going to jump off the page by the way sometimes does this tells you the cash right away because he knows it's going to bother you so over as we go through memory he said it says the word gad three times number one the rabbi says to be is a part of an animal has and it's non-coser so if somebody would go ahead and be right would you go ahead and would you be yeah as in the fetus is included it's considered right it's considered boser you're not let cook it together with it says and from the word I know that the of is not included the placenta is not included and finally if it's a noncro animal it's not going to be a problem so it says three times so based on that I learned sixes right and is a non-coosher animal the to be bothering everybody body is right. This is one of the great of all time. But anyway, is not finished. It also says three times. What do you do with those two? So if that is a that has that would not be included in the means it has to be from a female, not from a male. It has to be from an animal that's aim. It can mother a child technically. So if you milk a live animal, but once it's they can't mother a child anymore, it's going to be excluded. And finally, in the event that it's a non-cos animal, that too is going to be excluded. Bottom line is we have three drawes from that's good. But we have sixes from what's going on. How did go ahead and make sixes from three words. So the says like this holds now if that means so I don't need extra to be and why would you think there's no when it comes to only because maybe there's no on somebody that's already that's but no in the world that should be different and if that's the case two of those that we mentioned are not real [snorts] you don't need them as relates to dam right we said that one of the is coming to you tonight that the dam is not it's no together by the way the only way there would even be that is if we just so that also it's a fake I don't need that because there's a meaning that when you say mean the d it means the boss means the flesh that's what gi means So if that's case that's excluded as well. Oh by the way the shyami one of the that we use to be the placenta the placenta is not part of the meat either. It's like pa it's like the excrement. It's just something extra there. It's not part and parcel. If that's the case four of the six we knocked out. Oh the way we have the gear. So you left with two. You're left with two. So again we started off with six. endo for two. Which two do you end up with to tell me that the fetus is boss is considered bosser? Why would you think not? Again, I am payasha and the other ones come to you the non-coosher animal. Now two I thought you have three. I thought you have three right so is because one you need one is not extra there's two extra mean that there's two extra there's three you have for if you go through rashi inside rashi brings a hockey gar had a different gear where there was a garrison that said how rashi maneuvers that our gear is clearly and based on that the is one of them you need the other two you're going to be now this whole terret was predicated on holding isal being the so you don't need the rabbi you don't need And those were the two that we skimmed immediately off the top. send the name but not to [snorts] is that if a isum and he eats he's said that's only true if the chuma that he ate was but how do you know that a that's not being that the says [snorts] the reason is because when this person ate the chum he was the chum he was he defiled it your you made it now. Oh, it's but if it was already in that case there wouldn't be a problem. Now said this over in the name of if said this over the name sounds like he holds this way. Now this seems to scream because if isaler then why shouldn't the is of truma fall on top of fall on top of the fact that [snorts] the truma was already must because he holds soal and that's how you're reconciling sixes from three words you can't say that cuz you seem said over the Rebel and based on that it's pretty clear that is it's pretty clear that is that soar is going to give three truth two of them are extremely intuitive one of them is even hard to understand says the first is could be really and that's the over here in the I what's the so how could you that there's no for It's not because there's a there's a right. It was almost hard to say the with a straight face because there are so obvious. So the first of the is very posh very intuitive and that is at the end of the day but don't learn from but you want to know what is says this is the heart it's a little bit But over here it's different over here is that it's right either holds it's different or holds like but it's different right in the mah in saying hold in truma saying there's a lot of flying around. So either he holds or the only thing is it's a little bit hard to understand because the came out that although it says six times but really at the end of the day there's only twoas that are being had two and not three because one you need and there's going to be twoas and now the is saying in this which is all working to make that work right it's retrofitting the ter that we said we want to of the we had on the ter and what are we saying? Oh shi that means you have to come on to three. Now the truth is you could have learned the gamar that there was a third gi because really we had three to work with but didn't say that the said pashal. Now if you take a look at Rashi, Rashi works with this. It's a long rash where the if you didn't have the words and the so then you could say is now going to go back to and they're all included in one because the telling me that over here is I don't need a special one for I don't need a special one. The word trade throws us a little bit for a loop. Either way, bottom line is the same the 30 of the is the one that said the sixes for the three that we're making into two or the second maybe we're going back to three. This is now the lotion of the is interesting right first of all rebel and lived hundreds of years apart and besides who was fascinating but either way we are going to stop